BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL HIGHCOURT OF ARYAVARTA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. _______ / 2015
-

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

-FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA

Rashtriya Congress Party……………….Petitioner-

versus
-Union of Aryavarta and ors.....…………Respondent s

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Most Respectfully Submitted to the

Hon’ble
Central High Court of Aryavarta

Issues

ISSUE I:
Whether the instant petition is maintainable?
ISSUE II:
Whether the Preamble can be amended?
ISSUE III:
Whether the expression 'Secular' should be removed from the Preamble?
ISSUE IV:
Whether the expression 'Socialist' should be removed from the Preamble?
Team Code:

BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL HIGH COURT OF ARYAVARTA

TEAM CODE: TC 38P
ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P. (CIVIL) NO. _______ / 2015
- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION -
FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA
Rashtriya Congress Party ……………….Petitioner
- versus -
Union of Aryavarta and ors .....…………Respondents
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Most Respectfully Submitted to the Hon’ble Central High Court of Aryavarta
4TH INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY -TABLE OF CONTENTS-
I - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
.................................................................................................. II
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................
VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................
VII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...............................................................................................
VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..........................................................................................
IX
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
.................................................................................................. 1

1. THAT THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

CENTRAL HIGH COURT.
............................................................................................................ 1
A. THAT THERE IS A THREAT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND COURT HAS
JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITION.
................................................ 1
B. THAT THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.
.................. 3
C. THAT PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE INSTANT
MATTER AND HENCE THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.
.............................................................................. 3

2. THAT THE PREAMBLE CAN BE AMENDED

................................................................ 6
A. THAT ONLY THE OBJECTIVES FORM A PART OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF
THE CONSTITUTION
............................................................................................................................ 6
B. THAT THE AMENDING POWER OF THE PARLIAMENT IS VERY WIDE AND
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED IN A NARROW SENSE
........................................................................................... 7
C. THAT THE PREAMBLE NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO GUIDE THE
GOVERNMENT. ............. 7

3. THAT THE WORD “SECULAR” SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE

PREAMBLE10
A. THAT THE WORD “SECULAR” IS NOT AMBIGUOUS
..................................................... 10
B. THAT SECULARISM IS THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
.................................. 12
4. THAT THE EXPRESSION ‘SOCIALIST’ SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE
PREAMBLE.
.............................................................................................................................. 14
A. THAT THE WORD “SOCIALIST” HAS A PRECISE DEFINITION
........................................ 14
B. THAT THE OVERALL SCHEME OF CONSTITUTION IS SOCIALIST
.................................. 15
C. INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE
.............................................................................. 16
PRAYER.............................................................................................................................
.IX-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-
II - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner -
IINNDDEEXX OOFF AAUUTTHHOORRIITTIIEESS
CASES REFERRED
A.S. NarayanaDeekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
AIR1996SC1765............ 12
Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat [1975]1SCR173, 72. .........
10, 11
Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 719.
...................................... 6
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
(2007)4SCC361............................ 13
AtamPrakash v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR1986SC859.
.................................................. 14
Athiest Society of India, Nalgonda District Branch v. Govt. of Andhra
PradeshAIR1992AP310
....................................................................................................... 11
B. Archana Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Law (Legislative
Affairs and Justice) Department and Ors. 2005(6)ALD582
.......................................................... 13
Bal Patil and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 3172.
........................... 10
C Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore, (1965) 1 SCR 360
...................................................... 2
D.A.V. Collgev. v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC
261............................................................. 1
D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130 ...............................................
14, 16
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457
........................................................... 1, 3
Dattaraj NathujiThaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC
540....................................... 3
Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India AIR (1995) SC 605.
............................................... 13
Excel Wear and Ors. v. Union of India, (1978) 4 SCC 224.
................................................ 1,14
Gurtej Singh v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (1990)ILR 1Punjab and
Haryana418............ 11
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC
1461…................................................................................................................................
... 4, 6, 7, 8
Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
.......................................................... 2 -INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-
III - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner -
Indra Sawhney etc. etc v. Union of India and others, etc. etc., (1992) 3 SCC 217.
.............. 8, 9
IR Coelho v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362
....................................................................... 2
Ismail Faruqui v. UoI AIR 1995 SC 605
................................................................................. 12
Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892
...................................................................... 3
KihotoHollohan v. Zachillhu and Ors. 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 651.
............................................. 7
Krishna Pillai and Ors. v. Infant Jesus hurch and Anr. O.P. Nos. 1292, 1607 and 8171 of
1995....................................................................................................................................
13
KuldipNayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1
.................................................................... 2, 4
KumariShrilekhaVidyarthi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 212.
.................. 6
M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
...................................................... 6
Madhusudan Singh and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR1984SC374.
................................ 17
Mahanagar Ghaziabad Chetna Munch through its President, Sri Ram AvtarAgarwal and
Ors.v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and Ors. 2007 2 AWC1113All ..............
11
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, [1981] 1 SCR 206 ........................................... 2, 4,
8, 13
New Brunswick Broadcasting Corporation v. Nova Scotia Speaker, 1993 (1) SCR 391.
........ 4
Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 545.
.......... 16
P.M. Bhargava and Ors. v. University Grants Commission and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3478
.... 13
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust ® & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
AIR2014SC2114.................................................................................................................
........................... 13
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1962 SC 996.
............................................ 1,2
Rahmat Ali v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2001)ILR 1All387
...................................................... 13
Raja Rampal v. Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184 .....................................
3, 4, 5
Rajesh HimmatlalSolanki v. Union of India (UOI) through Secretary and 3 Ors.
(2011)1GLR782 ..............................................................................................................
11,13
Randhir Singh v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR1982 SC 879.
....................................... 15 -INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-
IV - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner -
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, [1970]3SCR530.
................................................. 4
S.P. Anand, Indore v. H.D. DeveGowda (1996) 6 SCC 81
....................................................... 3
Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company and Anr. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. AIR 1983
SC 239................................................................................................................................
14, 17
Sardar Taheruddin Syedna Saheb v.State of Bombay AIR1962SC853
.................................. 10
Saumya Ann Thomas v. The Union of India & Others ILR 2010 (1) Kerala
805................... 11
Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, [1965] 1 SCR 413
............................................................ 3, 4
SR Bommai v. Union of India, [1994] 2 SCR 644 ............................................ 2, 10, 11,
12, 13
State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia AIR 2004 SC 2081
...................... 10
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Ors. AIR1984SC326
...................... 17
Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India AIR1992SC320
........................ 5
Sukhdev & Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331
................................................... 3
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 1895
.................................... 5
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481
........... 8, 9
Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. S.R. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65
.......................................................... 1
Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898
..................................................... 1
Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Ors.AIR1975 SC
1788....................................................................................................................................
... 11, 13
Books/Journals Referred:
M.V. Pylee, Constitutional Amendments in India, (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi, 2006).
Aparajita Baruah, Preamble of the Constitution of India, 43 (1st ed. Deep & Deep
Publications, 2007).
Dr. A. Lakshminath, Basic Structure and Constitutional Amendments: Limitations and
Justiciability (Deep & Deep Publications Pvt Ltd 2010) 136
Tony Benn, Arguments for Socialism, (Penguin Books, U.K., 1980). -INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES-
V - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner -
Nehru, J., An Autobiography, 547 (Penguin Book., New Delhi, 2004).
O Chinnappa Reddy. The Court and the Constitution of India: Summits and Shallows,
139 ( Oxford India Paperpacks, 2013).
Constitutional Assembly Debates.
STATUTES:
THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA (PARI MATERIA WITH THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA). -STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-
VI - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner -
SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT OOFF JJUURRIISSDDIICCTTIIOONN
Rashtriya Congress Party, in the instant matter, has approached the Hon'ble Central
High Court of Aryavarta under Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavarta. - STATEMENT
OF FACTS-
VII - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner -
SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT OOFF FFAACCTTSS
Aryavarta (hereinafter "the country") is a country of continental dimensions resembling
those of India's politico-economic and legal entrenchments. The country has three main
communities, Aryans, Hodos, and Hotos. Among these, Aryans are in clear majority,
whereas Hodos and Hotos, along with some other indigenous communities are in
minority.
In 2014, Aryavarta Avam Party (hereinafter "AAP") achieved an absolute majority in the
Central Legislature. Aryavarta Rastra Sangh is said to be the ideological parent of AAP.
Mr. Totoro, a senior leader of Aryavarta Rastra Sangh, demands Preamble to be
restored back to its erstwhile form, before the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act,
1976. He averred that the word 'secular' was 'intentionally' avoided by the drafters of the
Constitution.
Another member of the Central Legislature, Mr. Sonaka, claimed that, the word,
'socialist' and 'secular' are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the
country. He also highlighted that, the 45th Constitutional Amendment Act was rejected
by the Central Legislature, which had aimed to define these two words, in Article 366 of
the Constitution.
The Prime Minister of the country has gone on record to dismiss all claims of Mr.
Totoro, and claimed that they had nothing to do with the statements of Mr. Totoro.
Meanwhile, Mr. Murakami, demanded the words 'socialist' and 'secular' to be removed
from the Preamble of the Constitution of the country due to their inconsistency with the
other provisions of the Constitution of the country. He further, had gone on to highlight
the limited amending power of the Parliament, and therefore, averred the 42nd
Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, to be declared as unconstitutional due to the vires
of the Parliament.
Infuriated by such demands and allegations, the Rashtriya Congress Party, has
approached the Central High Court of Aryavarta, accusing the AAP government, of
destroying the basic structure of the Constitution, by deleting these two controversial
words.
- The matter is listed for hearing at the Central High Court on 10th-11th Oct, 2015. - -
STATEMENT OF ISSUES -
VIII - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner -
SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT OOFF IISSSSUUEESS
ISSUE I:
Whether the instant petition is maintainable?
ISSUE II:
Whether the Preamble can be amended?
ISSUE III:
Whether the expression 'Secular' should be removed from the Preamble?
ISSUE IV:
Whether the expression 'Socialist' should be removed from the Preamble? -SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENTS-
IX - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner -
SSUUMMMMAARRYY OOFF AARRGGUUMMEENNTTSS
THAT THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE CENTRAL HIGH
COURT.
It is submitted that Hon’ble Central High Court has the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Aryavarta to entertain the petition. The statements given by Mr. Totoro
and several members of Central Legislature demanding removal of words “secular” and
“socialist” from the Preamble. There is a reasonable apprehension of a potential threat
of violation of the fundamental rights and substantial alteration of the basic politico-legal
setup which the constitution has established for the people of Aryavarta. Therefore,
Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition in form of a Public Interest
Litigation (“PIL”) under Article 32.Moreover, these statements are not protected by
Parliamentary Privileges and therefore, the petition is maintainable.
THAT THE PREAMBLE CAN BE AMENDED.
In the instant matter, it is submitted that, as per the doctrine laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, only the objectives of the Preamble form a part of the basic structure of
the doctrine. Apart from such, the amendatory power is plenary under Art. 368, of the
Constitution of Aryavarta, and therefore, it is submitted that, by deriving such power
under the umbrella of the Constitution of Aryavarta, the Parliament had amended the
Preamble of the Constitution.
THAT THE EXPRESSION ‘SECULAR’ SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE
PREAMBLE.
It is submitted that the insertion of the expression ‘secular’ in the preamble by way of
42nd Amendment which was neither intended nor foreseen by the founding fathers of
the nation. The constitution makers deliberately avoided the use of this express term. It
is because the word has multitudes of meanings and if taken in strict sense it would
stand in contradiction to substantive provisions of the Constitution. The presence of this
word in the Preamble is wholly unnecessary if seen in the light of rights granted under
Part III of the Constitution.
THAT THE EXPRESSION ‘SOCIALIST’ SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE
PREAMBLE.
It is submitted that the expression ‘socialist’ as inserted by the Constitution (Forty
second) Amendment Act, 1976 should be retained in the Preamble. This expression is
the window to -SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-
X - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner -
the goals sought to be achieved by the Constitution and it conforms to objectives of the
Constitution makers in truest sense. It is submitted that the expression ‘socialist’ can be
defined precisely in the context of Aryavarta and can be found in the overall scheme of
Constitution of Aryavarta. It is in the context of Aryavarta that the expression has been
construed to give effect to the ethos of the citizens. - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
1 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
AARRGGUUMMEENNTTSS AADDVVAANNCCEEDD
11.. TTHHAATT TTHHEE PPRREESSEENNTT PPEETTIITTIIOONN IISS
MMAAIINNTTAAIINNAABBLLEE BBEEFFOORREE TTHHEE HHOONN’’BBLLEE
CCEENNTTRRAALL HHIIGGHH CCOOUURRTT..
Several members of Central Legislature of Aryavarta and senior leader of Aryavarta
Rashtra Sangh (“ARS”) have made statements demanding that the expressions
'secular' and “socialist”1 should be removed from the Preamble. Central Legislature
(Parliament) is within the ambit of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. It is
submitted that these statements give rise to a reasonable apprehension of a potential
threat of violation of the fundamental rights and hence the Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction
to entertain writ petition in form of a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) under Article 32of
the Constitution.2Moreover, these statements are not protected by Parliamentary
Privileges and therefore, the petition is maintainable.
1 Vide The Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment Act, 1976.
2 Constitution of Aryavarta pari materia with Constitution of India, Factsheet ¶1.
3 Art. 32, the Constitution of Aryavarta; Kochhuni v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1959 SC
725..
4 Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457 (Hereinafter referred to as
“Daryao Case”); Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898.
5 Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996.
6 Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. S.R. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65.
7 D.A.V. Collgev. v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261.
8 Factsheet, ¶4.
A. That there is a threat to the Fundamental Rights and Court has jurisdiction under
Article 32 to entertain the petition.
1. The right to approach this Hon'ble Court in case of violation or a threat to
fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right enshrined in Article 323 and is not
merely a discretionary power of the Court.4 It is an absolute right.5It is submitted that to
invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court it is not necessary that an actual
violation of fundamental rights should take place, and even a threat of infringement to
the fundamental rights is sufficient.6A petition under Article 32 will be entertained even if
a prima facie case is made out that there is threat to fundamental rights, and it is not
necessary for the petitioner to wait till the actual threat has taken place.7
2. In the instant matter, Aryavarta Awam Party (“AAP”) has absolute majority in the
Central Legislature whose ideological parent is ARS.8 It can be reasonably
apprehended that by using the absolute majority in the Central Legislature, AAP
government can easily remove the - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
2 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
expressions 'secular' and 'socialist' from the preamble thereby destroying the essential
features9 of the Constitution which will adversely alter and affect the basic politico-legal
system of the country. It will be a direct attack on the democratic setup of the country.
Democracy is the basic structure10and altering it will further violate the fundamental
rights of the citizens namely, Articles 14, 15, 25-18, 29. It will also alter the scheme of
the constitution by nullifying several provisions of Part-IV, to name a few- Articles 38,
41, 47 etc. fundamental rights and directive principles must be read together.11 This is
a reasonable threat of violation of fundamental rights. There is greater threat to
democracy and basic structure at large. A modern democracy is based on the twin
principles of majority rule and the need to protect the fundamental rights. It is the job of
the judiciary to balance the principles ensuring that the Government on the basis of
number does not override fundamental rights.12
9 SR Bommai v. Union of India, [1994] 2 SCR 644 (Hereinafter referred to as “SR
Bommai case”); Excel Wear v. Union of India Infra 101.
10 KuldipNayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1 (Hereinafter referred to as
“KuldipNayar case”); Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
11 Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, [1981] 1 SCR 206. ( Hereinafter referred to as
“Minerva Mills case”)
12 IR Coelho v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362, ¶72; D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution
of India, 550 (14th Ed. Lexis Nexis, Wadhwa Nagpur ).
13 Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1962 SC 996.
14 C Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore, (1965) 1 SCR 360; D.D. Basu, Shorter
Constitution of India,586 (14th Ed. Lexis Nexis, Wadhwa Nagpur )
15 D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India,548 (14th Ed. Lexis Nexis, Wadhwa
Nagpur).
16 Factsheet, ¶ 5,6.
17 Factsheet, ¶7.
18 Factsheet, ¶9.
3. A writ petition, generally, does not lie unless the opposite party is a state within the
meaning of Article 12.13 Though the primary relief in a petition is against the State,
those who have been benefitted by the impugned order and who would necessarily be
affected if the impugned order is quashed should be made parties as respondents and
appropriate relief can be granted by the court against such persons as well.14 This
Court also has the jurisdiction to enforce against private bodies and individuals.15
4. In the instant matter, Mr. Totoro has made statements condemning the insertion of
the expression ‘secular’ in the Preamble and has demanded for anti-conversion laws.16
Subsequent to his statements, Mr. Totoro’s admirer, Mr. Sonaka has made similar
statement in the Central Legislature supporting Mr. Totoro.17Meanwhile several places
of worship of Hotos have been vandalized.18 It is submitted that Mr. Totoro being a
senior leader of ARS has influence on the thought process and actions of various
members of ARS as well as other - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
3 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
members of the society. His fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression are
subject to the reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2). In the instant matter, these
restrictions can be invoked and therefore the present petition is maintainable against
Mr. Totoro.
5. Therefore, it is submitted that the court being guarantor and protector of the
fundamental rights19, it is the duty of the court to protect the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution20and therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain the instant
matter
19 Daryao case, Supra 4.
20 Raja Rampal v. Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184. (Hereinafter
referred to as “Raja Rampal case”).
21 Sukhdev & Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331, ¶ 95.
22 Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892.
23 Dattaraj NathujiThaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540.
24 S.P. Anand, Indore v. H.D. DeveGowda (1996) 6 SCC 81.
25 Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, [1965] 1 SCR 413 ¶40. (Hereinafter referred to as
“UP Assembly case”).
26 Raja Rampal case, Supra 20.
B. That The petition is maintainable as Public Interest Litigation.
1. A PIL can be filed against the State for the violation of Fundamental rights under
Article 32 of the Constitution.21 A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest
in maintaining action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in
motion22 and such a person will have the locus standi.23Public interest should be
involved to file a PIL.24 In the instant matter, there is an imminent threat to the
democratic setup of the country, as a result of which there is a threat to violation of
fundamental rights of the citizens. Therefore, it is in public interest that petitioners have
approached the Hon’ble Court to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, basic
structure of the Constitution and politico-legal system established under it.
C. That Parliamentary Privileges cannot be invoked in the instant matter and hence the
petition is maintainable.
1. Constitution guarantees Parliamentary Privileges under Article 105 of the
Constitution. It is however submitted that Parliamentary Privileges cannot shield the
members in the instant matter. It is submitted that absolute sovereignty which, can be
claimed by the Parliament in England, cannot be claimed by any legislature in Aryavarta
in the literal absolute sense.25 Thus, Parliamentary Privileges are not absolutely
immune from judicial scrutiny.26 It was held by a Constitutional Bench in Raja Rampal
v. Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha that there is no scope for a general rule that the exercise
of powers by the legislature is not amenable to - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
4 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
judicial review; such a proposition will be in contradiction to the spirit of our
Constitution.27 The judicial organ of the State has been made the final arbiter of
Constitutional issues and its authority and jurisdiction in this respect is an important and
integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution of Aryavarta. The court held that in
case gross illegality or violation of constitutional provisions is shown, the judicial review
will not be inhibited in any manner by Article 122 or Article 105.28 An act of
unconstitutionality i.e. violation of constitutional provisions will not save the
Parliamentary proceedings from the scope of judicial review, the Court has the
jurisdiction to examine the procedure adopted.29 One part of the Constitution cannot be
abrogated or diminished by another part of the Constitution.30
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid, ¶265.
29 Raja Rampal case Supra20; UP Assembly case Supra25.
30 New Brunswick Broadcasting Corporation v. Nova Scotia Speaker, 1993 (1) SCR
391.
31 KuldipNayar case, Supra10.
32 His Holiness Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala Infra 40.
33 RustomCavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 530.
34 Raja Rampal case ¶231, Supra20.
35 Minerva Mills case, Supra11.
36 UP Assembly case, Supra25.
2. In the instant matter, members of Central Legislature have made a direct attack on
the basic structure of the Constitution by expressing the intention to remove
expressions ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the Preamble. Removing these expressions
will substantially alter the politico-legal system established by the Constitution,
democracy31 being the essential feature. Anything which is against the basic structure
is unconstitutional.32Therefore, the matter is not protected by Parliamentary Privileges.
3. Moreover, provisions of the Constitution are required to be read conjointly as to the
effect and operation of fundamental rights of the citizens when the State action infringed
the rights of the individual.33
4. The proposition that fundamental rights cannot be invoked in matters concerning
Parliamentary privileges is not acceptable.34 The fundamental rights and directive
principles are held to be the conscience of the Constitution and disregard of either
would upset the equivalence built up therein.35Legislative supremacy of the Parliament
is controlled by the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. In UP Assembly
case36 the court held “If the legislatures trespass on the fundamental rights of the
citizens in a manner not justified by the relevant articles dealing with the said
fundamental rights, their legislative actions are - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
5 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
liable to be struck down by courts in India. Therefore, though our legislatures have
plenary powers, they function within the limits prescribed by the material and relevant
provisions of the Constitution”.
5. Written Constitution is the "higher law" and acts as a limitation upon the legislature
and other organs and the concept is one of 'limited government'. Judicial review is an
incident of and flows from this concept; the judicial wing is the interpreter of the
Constitution and, therefore, of the limits of authority of the different organs of the
State.37An attempt to read a limitation into Article 122 so as to restrict the court's
jurisdiction to examination of the Parliament's procedure in case of unconstitutionality
would amount to doing violence to the constitutional text. Applying the principle of
"expression unius est exclusio alterius" (whatever has not been included has by
implication been excluded), it is plain and clear that prohibition against examination on
the touchstone of "irregularity of procedure" does not make taboo judicial review on
findings of illegality or unconstitutionality.38
37 Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India AIR1992SC320 ¶61.
38 Raja Rampal Case ¶253, Supra 20.
39 Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 1895.
6. In the instant matter, there is an imminent threat of violation of the fundamental rights
and the basic structure of the Constitution. The statements made by the members
attack the very root and spirit of the Constitution. This court has wide powers and it can
make pass any order or direction in a matter pending before it to do complete justice
under Art. 142.39 Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the present petition is
maintainable before the Hon’ble Court. - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
6 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
22.. TTHHAATT TTHHEE PPRREEAAMMBBLLEE CCAANN BBEE
AAMMEENNDDEEDD
It is humbly submitted before this Court that, the Preamble does not form a part of the
basic structure of the Constitution and hence, can be amended. This is because only
the objectives form a part of the basic structure of the Constitution; the amending power
of the Parliament is very wide and should not be construed in a narrow sense and the
Preamble needs to be amended to guide the Government. Insertion of the words
'secular ' and 'socialist' has enhanced the objectives of Preamble.
A. That only the objectives form a part of the basic structure of the Constitution
1. It is humbly submitted that, Preamble is a part of the Constitution and the edifice of
our Constitution is built upon the concepts crystallized in the Preamble.40 The
objectives that form a part of the basic structure doctrine,41 constitutes Justice, Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity.42 The Apex Court has time and again specified that these are
objectives which the Preamble of our Constitution seeks to achieve, and that every
State action must be aimed at achieving these goals in the light of Part IV.43 Further,
Justice, Social, Economic and Political, is the sum total of the aspirations incorporated
in part IV.44 Moreover, principles of federalism, secularism, reasonableness and
socialism etc., make the Constitution an organic whole.45 Axioms like secularism,
democracy, reasonableness, social justice etc. are overarching principles and stand at
the pinnacle of the hierarchy of constitutional values.46
40 His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC
1461.(Hereinafter referred to as "Kesavananda Bharti Case")
41 Ibid.
42 The Preamble to the Constitution of India.
43 Kumari ShrilekhaVidyarthi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 212.
44 Ibid, at ¶ 4.
45 M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
46 Ibid,. at ¶ 21.
47 Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 719.
2. The Indian Constitution is a radical document, a charter for socio-politico-economic
change and geared to the goals spelt out in the Objectives Resolution which commits
the nation to a drive towards an egalitarian society, a note struck more articulately by
the adjective 'socialist' to our Republic introduced by a recent Amendment and survives
after Parliament, differently composed, had altered the 42nd Amendment, by way of
44th Amendment.47
3. Therefore, it is submitted that, since, only the objectives of the Preamble form a part
of the basic structure of the Constitution, and the words 'Socialist' and 'Secular' have
enhanced and - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
7 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
reinforced the objectives of the Constitution, therefore, the impugned Constitution
Amendment Act,48 does not violate the basic structure doctrine laid down by the Apex
Court.
48 The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976.
49 Kesavananda Bharti Case Supra 40.
50 Per H.R. Khanna, J., Kesavananda Bharti Case Supra 40.
51 Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Ors. 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 651.
52 Kesavananda Bharti Case Supra 40, 896, 97
53 Kesavananda Bharti Case Supra 40, 964-67.
54 Dr. A. Lakshminath, Basic Structure and Constitutional Amendments: Limitations and
Justiciability 136 (Deep & Deep Publications Pvt Ltd 2010).
55 Kesavananda Bharti Case Supra 40, 603, 04.
B. That the amending power of the Parliament is very wide and should not be construed
in a narrow sense
1. It is submitted that, every provision of the Constitution can be amended provided in
the result the basic foundation and structure of the constitution remains the same.49
The power of amendment is plenary and includes within itself the power to amend the
various articles of the Constitution, including those which may be said to relate to
essential features.50 Certain limitations may be there which restrict the field of the
exercise of the amending power.51 However, there is no such restriction imposed on
the 'amendatory' power of the Parliament in respect of Preamble of the Constitution,
therefore, it is accordingly argued that, the Preamble can be amended from time to time,
to enhance the goals and directions of the State, to give effect to the Part-IV of the
Constitution, and to act as a welfare State.
2. The phrase “amendment of this Constitution” is the nerve-centre of Art. 368. It is
determinative of dominion as well as the magnitude of the amending power. The words
“this constitution” embrace the entire Constitution.52 Therefore, the word ‘amendment’
in Art. 368 has a clear and definite import and it connotes a power of widest amplitude
to make additions, alterations or variations.53 The amending procedure under Art. 368
is understandably simple and clearly indicated that the founding fathers did not want to
exclude any part of the Constitution from the purview of Art. 368.54
3. It can accordingly be concluded that the grant of power under Art. 368 was plenary,
unqualified and without any limitations except as to the special procedure to be
followed.55
C. That the Preamble needs to be amended to guide the Government.
1. It is submitted that, the goals and objectives of the Preamble are not mere semantics.
The essence of our Constitution is built upon the concepts crystallized in the preamble.
We - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
8 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
resolved to constitute ourselves into a Socialist State which carried with it the obligation
to secure to our people justice-social, economic and political. The three prongs of the
Justice have been clearly mentioned in the ideals of our Constitution. Part IV into our
Constitution containing directive principles of State policy therefore, specify the
socialistic goal to be achieved. Giving a new definition to the concept of Socialism, as
compared to the western philosophy, it is argued that, the words 'Socialist' and 'Secular'
were added to further the interests of the weaker section of the society. This was
commended by the Apex Court in the famous case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India.56
56 Minerva Mills Case Supra 11.
57 Ibid.
58 Fact Sheet, ¶ 5 at p. 3.
59 Article 29 of the Constitution of Aryavarta.
60 T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481, ¶
404.
61 Kesavananda Bharti Case Supra 40.
62 IndraSawhney etc. etc v. Union of India and others, etc. etc., (1992) 3 SCC 217. (¶
135).
2. Further, the Constitution gives the people, a democratic polity which carries with it the
obligation of securing to the people liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship; equality of status and of opportunity and the assurance that the dignity of the
individual will at all costs be achieved. Therefore, Part III includes the essence in our
Constitution conferring those rights on the people. The end is, as mentioned earlier, has
been specified in Part IV. It is in this sense that Parts III and IV together constitute the
core of our Constitution and, combine to form its conscience.57
3. Therefore, it is submitted that, at the instance of the demand being raised inside the
Parliament,58 to abrogate the impending relation between the Part III and Part IV must
be checked into. This is because, deleting the expressions ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’, will
create a gap of achievement of the goals specified under the Directive Principles of
State Policy.
4. It is to be noted that the minorities to whom various rights are given, have been
conferred to ensure that the majority, who due to their numbers would be politically
powerful, did not prevent the minorities from establishing and administering their own
educational institutions.59 In so providing, the basic feature of the Constitution, namely,
secularism and equality for all citizens, whether majority or minority was being kept in
mind.60 Since the very blood and soul of our Constitutional scheme are to achieve the
objectives of our Constitution as contained in the preamble,61 so it is incumbent to lift
the veil and see the notable aspirations of the Constitution.62 The vital objectives of the
Preamble, 'to secure, to all its citizens justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of
thought, expression, belief, - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
9 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
faith and worship; Equality of status and opportunity and to promote among them all
Fraternity assuring dignity of the individual' was not a matter of enactment sake, but was
an ideal set-up by the drafters of the Constitution.63 Therefore, pursuant to this, the
Parliament had amended and inserted the words 'socialist' and 'secular' to enhance the
ideologies of the Constitution and for achieving an egalitarian society in terms of the
basic structure of our Constitution as spelt out by the preamble.64
63 Ibid, ¶ 627.
64 Ibid,. ¶ 135.
65 Ibid, ¶ 332.
66 T.M.A. Pai Foundation Case Supra 60.
5. Although the idea of secularism may have been borrowed in the Indian Constitution
from the west. It has adopted its own unique brand of secularism based on its particular
history and exigencies which are far removed in many ways from secularism as it is
defined and followed in European countries, the United States of America and
Australia.65 The Constitution does envisage the involvement of the State in matters
associated with religion and religious institutions, and even indeed with the practice,
profession and propagation of religion in its most limited and distilled meaning66
6. Therefore, it is submitted that, by tracing the intention of the drafters of the
Constitution, to make Aryavarta, a secular and socialist country which is effectively
reflected throughout the constitution. - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
10 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
33.. TTHHAATT TTHHEE WWOORRDD ““SSEECCUULLAARR”” SSHHOOUULLDD
NNOOTT BBEE RREEMMOOVVEEDD FFRROOMM TTHHEE
PPRREEAAMMBBLLEE
The word ‘Secular’ was inserted by an amendment to the preamble to the Constitution
of Aryavarta by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. There has been recent uproar by
members of Central Legislature to remove this word from the Preamble and restore it in
original form on account of it being ambiguous67 and a slur on the face of majority68. It
is submitted that the expression ‘secular’ should be retained in the constitution because
it is not a vague concept and forms the foundation on which the democracy survives.
67 Factsheet ¶ 5
68 Ibid.
69 SardarTaheruddin SyednaSahebv.State of Bombay AIR1962SC853
70 S. R. Bommai Case Supra 9, 29.
71 VII, CAD (H.V. Kamath) p.420; Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of
Gujarat [1975]1SCR173, 72.
72 The concept will be in consonance with that of Aryavarta.
73 State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, AIR 2004 SC 2081 p 6; Bal
Patil and Anr. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 3172.
A. That the word “Secular” is not ambiguous
1. It is submitted that the word ‘secularism’ has been used by different people in
different context over different periods of time. However, in Indian context, the use of
the word “secular” and “secularism” predates the insertion of the word in the
Preamble.69 This implies that Aryavarta is not a stranger to the idea of ‘secularism’ and
it has its own concept of secularism.
2. The term 'Secular' has advisedly not been defined presumably because it is a very
elastic term not capable of a precise definition and perhaps best left undefined. By this
amendment what was implicit was made explicit.70 However, this does not mean that
the Constitution makers did not intend to keep the word within the preamble.71
3. The founding fathers of Constitution and various legal stalwarts have made attempts
to identify the constituents of Indian Secularism.72 Secularism is not to be confused
with communal or religious concepts of an individual or a group of persons. It means
that State should have no religion of its own and no one could proclaim to make the
State have one such or endeavor to create a theocratic state. 73
4. Secularism is neither anti-God, nor pro-God; it treats alike the devout, the agnostic
and the atheist. It eliminates God from the matters of the State and ensures that no one
shall be - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
11 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
discriminated against on the ground of religion.74 The concept of secularism in a
multicultural society like Aryavarta, takes the form of altruism and egalitarianism. The
Secular State, rising above all differences of religion, attempts to secure the good of all
its citizens irrespective of their religious beliefs and practices. It is neutral or impartial in
extending its benefits to citizens of all castes and creeds.75
74 Ahmedabad St. Xaviers Supra 71.
75 Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Ors., AIR1975
SC 1788.
76 Factsheet ¶ 1.
77 Factsheet ¶ ¶1, 5.
78 Athiest Society of India, Nalgonda District Branch v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
1992 AP 310.
79 Ibid.
80 Saumya Ann Thomas v. The Union of India & Others, ILR 2010 (1) Kerala 805, ¶ 31.
81 Gurtej Singh v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (1990) ILR 1Punjab and Haryana 418,
¶ 7.
82 Rajesh Himmatlal Solanki v. Union of India (UOI) through Secretary and 3 Ors.,
(2011)1 GLR 782.
83 Mahanagar Ghaziabad Chetna Munch through its President, Sri Ram Avtar Agarwal
and Ors. v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and Ors., 2007 2 AWC 1113 All.
84 S.R. Bommai Case Supra 9.
5. Aryavarta, a country with a hoary past and multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural
society76 has derived its concept of secularism from its ancient ethos and past
experience.77 Humanism and toleration were, by and large, a part of the spiritual,
cultural and intellectual ethics in the ancient Aryavarta78. The State is secular in the
sense that the Government will not associate itself directly with any religion; but at the
same time, every religion and faith are equally honoured and every citizen is free to
practice his own religious belief. Secularism represents, in a true sense, universalism
and freedom, which are the essential characteristics of secularism.79
6. The core of Constitutional secularism is the realistic understanding and acceptance
that the religions shall not transgress into domains and areas where religion is and
ought to be irrelevant.80 Secular means that the Constitution requires scrupulous
neutrality by the State as among religions and protection of all religions. No preference
can be given to a particular religion, sect or denomination.81 Secularism is a broad
religio-traditional consensus and can be termed based on the principles of "Vasudeva
Kutumbakam" i.e. live and let other live.82 Unity in diversity is the Indian philosophy,
from which concept of secularism has been borrowed in the Indian Constitution.83
7. Secularism is a descriptive concept and the essential ingredients constituting
secularism in the context of Aryavarta can be derived from 9 judge bench judgment84
The constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic state. State is also prohibited
to identify itself with - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
12 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
or favour a particular religion because State is enjoined to accord equal treatment of all
religions.85
85 Ismail Faruqui v. UoI, AIR 1995 SC 605.
86 A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1996 SC
1765.
87 Aparajita Baruah, Preamble of the Constitution of India, 43 (1st ed. Deep & Deep
Publications, 2007).
88 SR. Bommai Case Supra 9.
89 IV, CAD, p. 402.
90 SR. Bommai Case Supra 9; Kesavananda Bharti Case Supra 40.
8. True secularism is humanism in action and perceives divinity in everyone.86
Pluralism is the keystone to Indian culture and religious tolerance is the bedrock to
Indian secularism.87 In this light it is submitted that the claims made by different
members of Aryavarta Awam Party that the word ‘secular’ is vague and an impasse are
wholly irrelevant. The rulings of the courts enumerate all the constituents of secularism
as it is understood in the present context. These rulings are still followed and secularism
is considered the basic essential of democracy. It is achieved by the cooperation and
understanding between the majority and minority for the greater good of nation.
B. That Secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution
1. It is submitted that the founding fathers of constitution wanted to setup a secular state
and it is evident from various provisions of the constitution. The commitment to a
secular state can be seen in Articles 14-16 which ensure equality before law regardless
of religious afflictions, Articles 25- 28, 30 which assure right to freedom of religion and
Article 51A (e) which makes it a positive duty of every citizen to promote harmony
transgressing the boundaries of religion. It is a thread which runs throughout the
Constitution.88
2. An amendment was proposed by Prof. K. T. Shah to constitute India into a 'socialist'
and 'secular' state which was also supported by Sri H. V. Kamath but due to opposition
raised against the insertion of word ‘socialist’ the whole motion was negative. The
constituent assembly debates consistently reiterate that India is a secular nation.89
3. Secularism has come to be treated as a part of fundamental law, and an unalienable
segment of the basic structure of the country's political system.90 The Constitution-
makers certainly intended to set up a 'Secular Democratic Republic' the binding spirit of
which is summed up by the objectives set forth in the preamble to the Constitution. This
is an agreement with the people of the basic essentials which could unite the citizens
together despite all the - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
13 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
differences of religion, race, caste, community, culture, creed and language.91This
promise is necessary in a country where these differences can generate powerful
emotions and the democracy cannot survive without the understanding of secular
democracy.92
91 Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Supra 75.
92 Factsheet ¶ 9.
93 B. Archana Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Law (Legislative
Affairs and Justice) Department and Ors. 2005 (6) ALD 582; P.M. Bhargava and Ors. v.
University Grants Commission and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3478; Rahmat Ali v. State of U.P.
and Ors. (2001) ILR 1 All 387; Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust ® & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors. AIR2014SC2114; Krishna Pillai and Ors. v. Infant Jesus Church and Anr.
O.P. Nos. 1292, 1607 and 8171 of 1995, 17552 and 17668 of 1996 and 1969 and 8597
of 1998 etc. Decided On: 22.11.1999.
94 Rajesh Himmatlal Solanki v. Union of India (UOI) through Secretary and 3 Ors.
(2011)1 GLR 782.
95 S.R. Bommai Supra 9; Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India AIR (1995) SC 605.
96 Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 361.
97 SR Bommai Case Supra 9.
98 Minerva Mills Case Supra 11.
4. As per the Preamble, India is a secular state and secularism is forms the basic
structure of our constitution.93 The express mention in the preamble the various other
provisions under the Constitution do make it abundantly clear that secularism is the core
or basic character of our Constitution94 . Though the concept of "secularism" was not
expressly engrafted while making the Constitution, its sweep, operation and visibility are
apparent from fundamental rights and directive principles and their related provisions.95
5. Secularism is the basic feature of our constitution and any privilege granted by state
has to be balanced in such a manner so as not to destroy the basic structure.96 The
42nd Amendment to the constitution only made explicit what was present as the core of
basic structure of the Constitution.97 The preamble expresses the main objectives and
goals of the constitution. It identifies Aryavarta as a united nation despite its diversity. If
the word ‘secular’ is removed from the preamble, not only the basic structure has a
serious threat but a promise made to people is broken. It has been held by the Apex
Court that the insertion of the word ‘secular’ furnishes the most eloquent example of
how the amending power can be exercised consistently with the creed of the
Constitution.98
6. It is further submitted that the fact that secularism forms the basic structure of the
constitution is well accepted by the Legislature and the elected representatives
recognize the need for insertion of the expression within the Preamble. This is evident
from the fact that while the changes brought about in substantive provisions of the
Constitutional (Forty Second Amendment) Act 1976 were diluted by the 44th
Amendment Act 1978, the changes made to the preamble were kept intact. -
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
14 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
44.. TTHHAATT TTHHEE EEXXPPRREESSSSIIOONN ‘‘SSOOCCIIAALLIISSTT’’
SSHHOOUULLDD NNOOTT BBEE RREEMMOOVVEEDD FFRROOMM TTHHEE
PPRREEAAMMBBLLEE..
It is submitted that the expression ‘socialist’ as inserted by the Constitution (Forty
Second) Amendment Act, 1976 should be retained in the Preamble. This expression is
the window to the goals sought to be achieved by the Constitution and it conforms to
objectives of the Constitution makers in truest sense. It is submitted that the expression
‘socialist’ can be defined precisely in the context of Aryavarta and can be found in the
overall scheme of Constitution of Aryavarta. It is in the context of Aryavarta that the
expression has been construed to give effect to the ethos of the citizens.
A. That the word “Socialist” has a precise definition
1. It is submitted that Socialism expresses a concern for the social welfare of the
oppressed, the unfortunate and the disadvantaged and affirms the values of equality, a
classless society, freedom and democracy.99 Justice Desai in D.S. Nakara v. Union of
India100 emphasized that the principal aim of Socialism is to eliminate inequality in
income, status and standard of life.
99 Tony Benn, Arguments for Socialism, (Penguin Books, U.K., 1980).
100 D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130 (Herreinafter “D. S. Nakra
case”).
101 Excel Wear and Ors. v. Union of India, (1978) 4 SCC 224.
102 D.S. Nakara Case Supra 100 ¶ 35.
103 Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., ( 1980 ) 2 SCC 591.
104 Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company and Anr. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. AIR
1983 SC 239.
105 Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 859.
2. Socialism is a word that has gone through many changes from thinkers to
thinkers.101 The principal aim of a socialist State is to eliminate inequality in income
and status and standards of life. The basic framework of socialism is to provide a
decent standard of life to the working people. It means that the economic form that is
contemplated under the Constitution supports the idea of welfare of people rather than
exploitative abuse through market mechanism.102 In all, Part-IV of the Constitution
containing directive principles of State policy which specify the socialistic goal to be
achieved103 advance the principle of egalitarian society.104
3. The expression ‘socialist’ must be interpreted in the light of rights and directions
enshrined in Part III and Part IV of the constitution and an interpretation must be given
to the word which is consistent with the scheme of constitution. A socialist state is one
that is opposed to oppressive feudalistic society and strives for general welfare subject
to availability of resources and circumstances.105 Ownership, control and distribution of
national productive - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
15 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
wealth for the benefit and use of the community and the rejection of a system of misuse
of its resources for selfish ends is what socialism is about and the words and thought of
Article 39(b) but echo the familiar language and philosophy of socialism as expounded
generally by all socialist writers.106
106 Randhir Singh v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR1982 SC 879.
107 Nehru, J., An Autobiography, 547 (Penguin Book., New Delhi, 2004).
108 O Chinnappa Reddy. The Court and the Constitution of India: Summits and
Shallows, 139 ( Oxford India Paperpacks, 2013).
109 Art. 38, the Constitution of Aryavarta.
110 Art. 39(a), the Constitution of Aryavarta.
111 Art. 39(b), the Constitution of Aryavarta.
112 Art. 39(c), the Constitution of Aryavarta.
113 Art. 39(d), the Constitution of Aryavarta.
114 Art. 39(e), the Constitution of Aryavarta.
115 Art. 39(f), the Constitution of Aryavarta
116 Art. 39A, the Constitution of Aryavarta.
B. That the overall scheme of Constitution is socialist
1. Socialist Scheme of the Constitution can be traced in Part III and Part IV of the
Constitution of Aryavarta. It is submitted that in many debates in the Constituent
Assembly, socialism was used, often interchangeably, to mean two different things. The
first was socialist ideals or goals, which was mainly economic egalitarianism. The
second was socialist means towards those goals, which was centralized state planning
of the economy. During the debates, despite these differences of opinion, a great effort
was made to find common ground and reach consensus within a constitutional
framework.
2. It was believed that the main objective of a democratic set up will be that of alleviating
the poor. Democracy and capitalism grew up together in the nineteenth century, but
they were not mutually compatible. There was a basic contradiction between them, for
democracy laid stress on the power for many, while capitalism gave real power to the
few.107
3. Though the word Socialism was not expressly used in the Constitution but the
attributes of Socialism have always been engrained in the Directive Principles of State
Policy.108 The various socialist goals engrained in the Constitution are: Securing a
social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people109; policy for adequate
means of livelihood110; policy for control of material resources of the society for the
common good111; policy against concentration of wealth112; policy for equal pay for
equal work113; health of workers114; protection of childhood against exploitation115;
free legal aid116; provision for securing right - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
16 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
to work, to education, to public assistance, provision for just and humane conditions of
work117 etc.
117 Art. 41, the Constitution of Aryavarta.
118 D.S. Nakara Supra 100 ¶ 37.
119 Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 545.
120 Vol. I, CAD p. 62.
121 Statement of Objects and Reasons, The Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment
Act, 1976.
122 Statement of Objects and Reasons, The Constitution (Forty Fourth) Amendment
Act, 1978.
123 S. 2(a)(ii), The Constitution (Forty Fourth) Amendment Act, 1978 wherein the
Fundamental right to property was made a legal right; Ss. 9 The Constitution (Forty
Fourth) Amendment Act, 1978.
124 Art. 31A, the Constitution of Aryavarta.
125 Art. 19(6) (ii), the Constitution of Aryavarta.
4. The direction in which the State action-must move, the welfare State which we
propose to build up, the constitutional goal of setting up a socialist State and the
assurance in the Directive Principles of State Policy, all are in consonance with and
furtherance of the goals of the Constitution to set up a socialist state. For example, it
can directly be seen through the operation of pension schemes, as was specifically
highlighted by the Apex Court.118 Therefore, Directive Principles, which are
fundamental in the governance of the country, must serve as a beacon light to the
interpretation of the Constitutional provisions.119
5. It was always intended by the founding fathers120 of the Constitution that Aryavarta
should be a socialist state and though they did not mention it expressly, the seeds of
ideas of socialism are embedded in the fruits given by the Directive Policy under the
constitution. It is these high ideas that the 42nd Amendment intended to promote 121
and though there was a change in government and the effect of Amendment had been
diluted, the intention of the legislature remained the same. It can be clearly seen122
from the 44th amendment123 made to the constitution that socialist ideas were not only
accepted but also promoted.
C. Intention of the Legislature
1. It is submitted that the constituents of Socialism were always present and cherished
in the Part II and IV of the Constitution. Moreover, over the years when pure market
economy has fallen flat on its face and proved itself to be oppressive and exploitative
the Legislature has shown more commitment to protect the rights of the people by
inclining towards the social legislations.
2. This approach can be seen in the power of Government to acquire estate124 and
making any law for public state owned corporations125 granted under the First
Amendment to the Constitution. Subsequently by the Nationalization of Banks in 1969,
insertion of Article 31C - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
17 -Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
which reaffirms the importance of Directive Principles126, the insertion of word
‘socialist’ in the preamble and the removal of right to property from the fundamental
right127 it can be reasonably inferred that the Legislature has advocated and time and
again reaffirmed its ‘socialist’ approach.
126 The Constitution (Twenty fifth) Amendment Act, 1971.
127 The Constitution (Forty Fourth) Amendment Act, 1978.
128 State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Ors. , AIR 1984 SC 326.
129 Sanjeeva Coke Manufacturing Supra 104.
130 Madhusudan Singh and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 374.
3. It is further submitted that Article 31C of the Constitution saves, all the laws which
give effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid
down in Part IV of the Constitution, from being declared void even if they are
inconsistent with or takes away the fundamental rights conferred by article 14 and 19.
From the above article it can be inferred that the Constitutional scheme has always
been for the socialist principles. The reason for this is that Article 31C was not merely a
pragmatic approach to socialism but imbibed a theoretical aspect by which all means of
production, key industries, mines, minerals, public supplies, utilities and services, may
be taken gradually under public ownership, management and control. 128It is to be
noted that the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 of Government of India mentions in
its preamble the adoption of the Socialist pattern of society as the national objective,
thus further proving that Socialism has always been the goal and the amendment was
only to emphasize the urgency.129
4. In this light the Apex Court clarified the importance of Article 31 C and object of
securing welfare of people as “the doctrine of nexus cannot be extended to such an
extreme limit that the very purpose of Article 39(b)&(c) is defeated.... If the nexus is
present in the law then the protection of Art, 31C becomes complete and irrevocable”.
130
5. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the insertion of the expression ‘socialist’ is
justified and promotes the basic idea on which a democratic country functions i.e.
welfare of people. If the constitutional provisions are interpreted in the light of this word
the scope of misuse of power can be reduced and the constitutional goals will be easy
to achieve. - PRAYER-
IX - Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-
PPRRAAYYEERR
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED,
REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
I. ALLOW THE PETITION.

II. HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE
AMENDED.

III. HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE WORD 'SECULAR' SHOULD NOT BE
REMOVED FROM THE PREAMBLE.

IV. HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE WORD 'SOCIALIST' SHOULD NOT BE
REMOVED FROM THE PREAMBLE.

V. DIRECT THE CENTRAL LEGISLATURE TO REFRAIN FROM MOVING AN

AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE EXPRESSIONS 'SECULAR' AND 'SOCIALIST'
FROM THE PREAMBLE.

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT, IN
FAVOR OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
SD/-
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER